Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dy. CIT v. Ganges International P. L td (2022) 95 ITR 161Chennai) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission-Documents produced-Direct nexus between commission paid and income generated-Even in the absence of any agreement with the commission agent, simply introducing or referring potential customers the commission payment is allowable as deduction.

SKF Engineering and Lubrication India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 24 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Product development expenses-Allowable as revenue expenditure-Provision for customer claims-Matter restored to Assessing Officer to examine claim in accordance with principles laid down by Supreme Court-Provision for bad and doubtful debts–Matter restored to Assessing Officer.

Bharat Fritz Wermer Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2022) 95 ITR 507 (Bang) (Trib)

S .37(1) : Business expenditure-Short fall in inventory written off-Allowable as deduction-Purchase of tools allowable as revenue expenditure-Provision for warranty-Allowable as deduction-Lability for erection and commissioning placed upon shoulders of assessee-Provision at rate of one per cent. to three per cent. determined on basis of past experience-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 28(1)]

VRL Logistics Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)95 ITR 221 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Prior period expenses-Payments were made when actual bills received after crystallisation of expenditure-Allowable as deduction. [S. 145]

Rainbow Promoters (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)95 ITR 232 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Additional payment to avoid litigation-Deduction not claimed-Disallowance is not warranted.

Sant Tukaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. ITO (2022)96 ITR 72 (SN) (Pune)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Diversion by overriding title-Matter remanded. [S. 40A(2)]

Sant Tukaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. ITO (2022)96 ITR 72 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Ceremony expenses-Disallowance at 30 Per Cent is held to be justified.

M. D. Noorudin Zariwala v. CIT(Appeals) (2022) 96 ITR 43 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Travelling expenses-Personal use-Disallowance of 20 Per Cent. for personal use is held to be justified.

M. D. Noorudin Zariwala v. CIT(Appeals) (2022) 96 ITR 43 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Payment to Mosque for free lunch to Assessee’s employees-Mosque not under control of assessee-Free Lunch not provided exclusively to Labourers of assessee-Not allowable as deduction.

Welkin Telecom Infra (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 475 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Subscription paid to different committees and associations in local vicinity-Allowable as deduction-Excess amount paid as written off-Matter remanded.